The Bremer Project:

The Neo-Conservative's Trojan Horse

"It's More Than Just Oil"

We've heard it time and time again from right-wingers, neo-cons, and skeptics throughout the course of the war, "The Iraq War isn't about oil", and though it's been proven in the past that the War has something to do with Peak Oil, crude oil and that they are very much interlinked, those who say, "The war isn't about oil" are partly right.

After reading an article from Harper's Magazine entitled, Baghdad Year Zero, written by Naomi Klein (2004) (which was recommended by a close friend), my understanding of Iraq and what has been going on for over 5 years is incredibly clearer. Beneath the surface- underneath all of the stories about Halliburton and the oil companies, we find a much deeper truth, and a more cynical plot as to why America occupies Iraq. So it's true, the war isn't only about oil, but rather, it's just a big slice of a bigger pie.

The Lesser Of Two Evils

During this blog, you only need to pay attention to essentially, two names: Gen. Jay Garner & Paul Bremer. General Jay Garner was appointed Director of Reconstruction & Humanitarian Assistance for Iraq following the 2003 Iraq invasion. The Bush Administration, in a matter of months, replaced Garner with Lewis Paul Bremer, who was a Washington political guru with no military background. While Garner was in charge of Iraq's reconstruction, his philosophy and plan was to build Iraq to a stable state, and let them rule their own government. Klein gives a clear outline of General Garners' intentions for Iraq,

"General Garner's plan was straightforward enough: fix the infrastructure, hold quick and dirty elections, leave the shock therapy to the International Monetary Fund, and concentrate on securing U.S. military bases on the model of the Philippines."

General Garner obviously bumped heads with the Bush Administration on how to attack the issues of Iraq. Wikipedia.org cites,

"It has been suggested that Garner was moved aside because he did not agree with the White House about who should decide how to reconstruct Iraq. He wanted early elections - 90 days after the fall of Baghdad, and the new government to decide how to run the country and what to do with their assets. Garner said "I don't think [Iraqis] need to go by the U.S. plan, I think that what we need to do is set an Iraqi government that represents the freely elected will of the people. It's their country… their oil." "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Garner

Paul Bremer had different plans, and so did the neo-conservatives who scooted him in the front door. Bremer's job was to champion the neo-con dream in turning Iraq into a free-market capitalistic playground for big corporations and multinational giants.

Suddenly, the price of gas and the cost of a barrel of oil shrink in comparison...

If I could turn back time, I would've kept General Garner in charge- and it's quite possible that we would see a different Iraq today if that had been the case. Though Garners' plan wasn't necessarily innocent and great, it was more honorable than anything that Bremer can even comprehend...

Paul Bremer Is A Great Guy!

I couldn't believe it when I read it, but this Yale jerk turn political hack-job profited off of the tragedies of 9/11. He used the fear factor and the mechanism of 9/11 to make a killing in profit. Klein says it best in her article Baghdad Year Zero,

"A Reagan-era diplomat turned entrepreneur, Bremer had recently proven his ability to transform rubble into gold by waiting exactly one month after the September 11 attacks to launch Crisis Consulting Practice, a security company selling "terrorism risk insurance" to multinationals."

Talk about some of the lowest scum in the bottom of the dirtiest barrel... Riding on this first bit of information alone, sets the tone for the rest of this blog...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bremer

Economic 'Shock-Therapy'

I could try to regurgitate this information from Naomi Klein's article Baghdad Year Zero, but to spare some of my retelling- I'll just quote her appropriately:

"Torturers believe that when electrical shocks are applied to various parts of the body simultaneously subjects are rendered so confused about where the pain is coming from that they become incapable of resistance. A declassified CIA "Counterintelligence Interrogation" manual from 1963 describes how a trauma inflicted on prisoners opens up "an interval—which may be extremely brief—of suspended animation, a kind of psychological shock or paralysis. . . . [A]t this moment the source is far more open to suggestion, far likelier to comply." A similar theory applies to economic shock therapy, or "shock treatment," the ugly term used to describe the rapid implementation of free-market reforms imposed on Chile in the wake of General Augusto Pinochet's coup. The theory is that if painful economic "adjustments" are brought in rapidly and in the aftermath of a seismic social disruption like a war, a coup, or a government collapse, the population will be so stunned, and so preoccupied with the daily pressures of survival, that it too will go into suspended animation, unable to resist. As Pinochet's finance minister, Admiral Lorenzo Gotuzzo, declared, "The dog's tail must be cut off in one chop."

In a nutshell, the method of "shock therapy" is applied to economic reform in unstable countries where the US might have special interests. Instead of a slow pressure to switch to capitalism, a quick surge of policy change after and during a traumatic event within the state- causes a "shock" so intense, that the people aren't able to battle on a political front, as well as a military front. Put simply- the US can plant its' corporate dream policy behind the scene, while everyone else is counting the death toll...

"Rebuilding Iraq"

So do you ever bump into the average conservative Republican, and you get to talking about Iraq and the war, then about Bush and his policies- and then you start debating or arguing about whether or not we're really "liberating the Iraqi people" or "creating a democracy in Iraq"? Ever get tired of trying to tell them that it's a bunch of transparent bullshit? Worry no more, because you've just been strapped with infinite ammo- ready to unload on a gullible neo-con…

It turns out our boys in the White House and Pentagon had no intension of reconstructing Iraq, in fact- the destruction was the main objective. Why? Once Paul Bremer was appointed Director of Reconstruction & Humanitarian Assistance for post-war Iraq and head of the CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority), they didn't hesitate to get down to business, and Bremer fired about 500,000 Iraqi state workers- of whom a great percentage were soldiers. Klein writes in her article,

"The tone of Bremer's tenure was set with his first major act on the job: he fired 500,000 state workers, most of them soldiers, but also doctors, nurses, teachers, publishers, and printers. Next, he flung open the country's borders to absolutely unrestricted imports: no tariffs, no duties, no inspections, no taxes. Iraq, Bremer declared two weeks after he arrived, was "open for business."

Clearly, the political agenda for the neo-conservatives was not really rebuilding Iraq, but rather, building a new "America". Except- it would be better than America: a capitalist utopia- a corporation's dreamland- where these wealthy giants can grow even bigger and acheive far beyond the taxes, regulations, and laws that they have to abide by here in America. Bremer went in like a snake- under the noses of every major news outlet- and with no hesitation, unleashed his bag of tricks on the Iraqi interim government,

"But Bremer's economic engineering had only just begun. In September, to entice foreign investors to come to Iraq, he enacted a radical set of laws unprecedented in their generosity to multinational corporations. There was Order 37, which lowered Iraq's corporate tax rate from roughly 40 percent to a flat 15 percent. There was Order 39, which allowed foreign companies to own 100 percent of Iraqi assets outside of the natural-resource sector. Even better, investors could take 100 percent of the profits they made in Iraq out of the country; they would not be required to reinvest and they would not be taxed. Under Order 39, they could sign leases and contracts that would last for forty years. Order 40 welcomed foreign banks to Iraq under the same favorable terms. All that remained of Saddam Hussein's economic policies was a law restricting trade unions and collective bargaining."

So, imagine: A Muslim army begins invading our country and arresting our President. Then they come in with all of their tanks, guns, corporations, and contractors and start forcing our businesses to sell or suffer. Then they fire almost all of our state workers and federal employees (cleaning out the termites)- yet claiming to the rest of the world that they're promising to 'rebuild our nation'. The liberals and conservatives in this country break out in a civil war and the muslim army can't quite handle it- and suddenly, our resistance, militias, and citizen forces who are dedicated to protect America are considered the 'bad guys' and the terrorists. So the muslim army starts sectioning off parts of cities with walls made in other countries, and protecting the corporations that are supposed to populate on our land. Then, imagine Muslim extremist hiring politicians from the Middle East to come in while we're hit with war and terror- and start re-writing our Constitution, clause by clause, article by article, and bill by bill- and before you know it- it's illegal to print a newspaper criticizing the new government.

Sounds like fascism, right? That's what we're doing in Iraq… Spreading freedom? The only freedom we're spreading is freedom fries- because McDonald's wants a piece of the action...

Essentially, Bremer went in- and re-wrote the "Iraqi Constitution" for lack of better words- and totally changed Iraq's foreign trade policy, tax & tariffs, and business regulations. The neo-con agenda was to set up a complete open market- with no restrictions, and no limits to what a corporation can do as a private entity. In other words: privatization on crack.

The Iraqi Elections & Iraq's Brand New Government!

Remember General Garners' plan to hold "dirty quick elections" within 90 days after the fall of Baghdad? Though even that was wishful thinking, at least he intended for Iraq to actually govern itself. Well, (and I've always known this in my heart) after Bremer and the Bush Administration set up a "puppet government" in Iraq- hand-picked by Washington- it was now a democracy! I think Thomas Jefferson just squeezed out a tear in his grave it sounds so beautiful, except the fact that Bremer had full VETO power over the whole "newly elected government". What a democracy… So basically, Bremer says, "If you don't approve or ratify my new additions to your new Constitution, then I'll just veto whatever you do present me with- not to mention all of the political kickbacks they probably bribed most of the politicians in Iraq with.

Sorry, We're Too Busy Staying Alive Right Now…

In the meantime, car bombs are sounding off to the beat of a drum, machine gun fire is like an oven timer than keeps going off every 15 minutes, and kidnappings and hostage situations are like birthday parties; an everyday occurrence. While silver spoon in hand picked politicians sit in Iraq's new Council- deciding about Bremer's new policies- the Iraqi people are too busy trying not to get killed; Shock Therapy at its' best. Except, how therapeutic is it? No one is healing.

Pragmatists vs. The Year Zeroists

Naomi Klein breaks it down into two major groups. Not Sunnite, Shiite, or Kurds- but the Pragmatists & the Year Zeroists. Klein explains it best:

"On one side were "the pragmatists," who favored getting rid of Saddam and his immediate entourage, securing access to oil, and slowly introducing free-market reforms

On the other side was the "Year Zero" camp, those who believed that Iraq was so contaminated that it needed to be rubbed out and remade from scratch."

So, we have the General Jay Garner who would be a Pragmatist- someone who would like to see democracy be a natural gradual process- and a Year Zeroist, like Bremer- who wants to see Iraq morph into a free-market capital. For more information about the Pragmatists and the Year Zeroists- read Naomi Klein's article Baghdad Year Zero:

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/09/0080197

It is a must read (but of course, please finish reading my blog first).

Easy Allies

For the neo-cons, finding an ally was easy as the Year Zeroists were right on their level as far as getting rid of Saddam and dismantling Iraq as a whole was concerned. Using this group, the Bush Administration had an inside track in Iraq and a mechanism to apply their agenda. Build all the allies you can while you can, but underestimating the enemies will be your demise.

If You Build It, They Won't Come…

Bremer had almost set up the perfect capitalist sanctuary- a corporations' dream, but guess what? Under the Geneva Convention, all of Bremer's new policies were completely illegal. So go figure: Ikea, McDonalds, and Sony are going to take a step back and, "get back to you about that idea, there Mr. Bremer…"

"The CPA derived its legal authority from United Nations Security Council
Resolution 1483, passed in May 2003, which recognized the United States and Britain as Iraq's legitimate occupiers. It was this resolution that empowered Bremer to unilaterally make laws in Iraq. But the resolution also stated that the U.S. and Britain must "comply fully with their obligations under international law including in particular the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Hague Regulations of 1907." Both conventions were born as an attempt to curtail the unfortunate historical tendency among occupying powers to rewrite the rules so that they can economically strip the nations they control. With this in mind, the conventions stipulate that an occupier must abide by a country's existing laws unless "absolutely prevented" from doing so. They also state that an occupier does not own the "public buildings, real estate, forests and agricultural assets" of the country it is occupying but is rather their "administrator" and custodian, keeping them secure until sovereignty is reestablished."[i/]

Under this international law, businesses and corporations grew weary of investing and moving to Iraq- it was simply too risky.

The Neo-Cons & Bremer Don't Give Up

They find a glitch in the system, and Bremer is finally able to implement his policies through a puppet government courtesy of the Bush Administration,

[i]"Originally, Bremer had pledged to hand over power to a directly elected Iraqi government, but in early November he went to Washington for a private meeting with President Bush and came back with a Plan B. On June 30 the occupation would officially end—but not really. It would be replaced by an appointed government, chosen by Washington. This government would not be bound by the international laws preventing occupiers from selling off state assets, but it would be bound by an "interim constitution," a document that would protect Bremer's investment and privatization laws."

Essentially, if the U.S. occupation can't control Iraqi assets, then the neo-cons will just set up a puppet government to act as pawns and allow American and other multinational corporations to buy up Iraqi assets. The "new Iraqi government", which was hand chosen by Washington, isn't constricted by the International laws, and Bremer's newly instated Iraqi economic policies remain.

What We Learn

If you thoroughly read through Naomi Klein's article, Baghdad Year Zero, You'll find and grasp a better understanding and insight into the Iraq War and why we're still there. Bush might be an idiot, but he's doing exactly what the neo-con think-tanks want him to do. It's almost as if the country will persecute him and focus all of their attention on him, one person, for all of the crimes that have been done, when half of Washington and the GOP should be indicted or fined for perjury, war crimes, and treason. We learn that the most sickening and devious plots in government can easily slip beneath our noses- and only those who read, will ever end up knowing. We learn that there are people so greedy, that they will stop at nothing to create a state of ultimate power and greed at the cost of human life.

What is still frustrating to me, is that Naomi Klein's article, Baghdad Year Zero, is about 3 years old now- written in 2004. Three years. Not only that, but it was written in Harper's Magazine... Not the Washington Post, not the New York Times, not even the San Francisco Chronicle. Where was the real news coverage when we, the people, needed it most? If the American people knew about all of this in 2004, things would be a whole lot different now- and even Republicans wouldn't be able to buy all of the bullshit that the Bush Administration and the neo-cons continually try to push.

Next time someone says, "the war isn't about oil", you can tell them, "Yes, you're partly right- it's much bigger than just that…" and then lay into them with the hard facts. Read up on this- study it- know it, and then hit them hard. America has no more room for ignorance, blind faith, and false patriotism. True patriots will protect our rights and our real freedoms- so let's uphold the 1st amendment and speak out about this.

(original blog posted on 07/14/07 at http://blog.myspace.com/drivethenation)